JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG

WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.

Monday, May 15, 2023

Judge Frank Johnson

In light of the resignation of a judicial hugging giant on Friday, it's time for everyone's favourite Constitutional Calendar by Judge Milt Hirsch. You know it. You love it. You cannot live without it.  If we start a campaign maybe we can get the good Judge to start an Instagram Account "Constitutional Calendar By Milt" It would go viral with our help. 



And this one is about a true Judicial giant, a man who was directly responsible, at great personal risk to his life, with making rulings enforcing the civil rights acts of 1964 and voting rights act of 1965 when he was a district court judge in Alabama. As the picture shows, he was on the cover of Time in 1967 because of his courageous rulings. For you new judges Time was a weekly magazine that covered national and international issues. 

A magazine was....oh never mind. 

Judge Johnson was a man who swam against the tide of public opinion because he knew right from wrong. A man who was not beholden to anyone. He didn't just call balls and strikes. He was a man who saw wrong and did right. Our judges today, who are afraid of their shadow and the SAO, of whom we bet 99.9% would not be able to identify if Frank Johnson was a district and circuit court judge, or a place kicker for the Dolphins in the mid 1980s, would do well to read up about Judge Frank Johnson. 


On May 16, 1979, Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Johnson, a district judge in Alabama, was already a legendary figure for his role in desegregating the schools of his state.  His appearance before the Senate was in connection with his nomination to what was then the Fifth Circuit.

Unexpectedly, Johnson was presented with a “minority questionnaire” prepared by Strom Thurmond and other Republican members of the Committee.  The questionnaire’s second question was, “The Federal Judiciary has become the target of both popular and academic criticism that alleges that it has usurped many of the prerogatives of the legislative branch of the federal and state governments by engaging in their [sic; its] own law-making. ...  Please discuss whether or not you agree with these criticisms.  What are your own personal views on ‘judicial activism,’ the phrase often used to describe these judicial tendencies[?]”

Johnson responded:

The charge that federal judges have engaged in “law-making” is as old as the Constitution itself. ... In a democracy, the power of the courts to decide constitutional cases is not, and should not be, absolute.  The doctrine of separation of powers and the doctrine of “Our Federalism” properly circumscribe the role of the federal courts.  But these doctrines serve only to limit, not to bar, the exercise of judicial power.  Neither doctrine reserves to Congress or the states the right to violate the Constitution.  The balance between “law-making” and “law-interpreting” is a fragile one.  While a failure to defer to the decisions of coordinate branches of government is judicial intrusion and therefore improper, a blind deference to legislative and executive action is judicial abdication and is equally mistaken. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be made effective in the present. 

 

The Constitutional Calendar (c) 2023 Judge Milt Hirsch, all rights reserved. Reprinted with semi-permission of the author. 

GILIUM CASE UPDATE: 

The government folded their tent and ran away. With the jury 10-2 for acquittal on the remaining  counts of fraud and money laundering, and with the not guilty on the false statement count, the government announced today that they will NOT re-try Gilium. In legal terms, they got their freaking ass kicked and said enough. 

Well done David and Margo and Katie Miller and Todd Yoder. 

Well done indeed. 

10 comments:

CAPTAIN JUSTICE said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

AND YOUR TWO NEWEST COUNTY COURT JUDGES ARE .....

Last week we reported to you that Gov. DeSantis would be naming the replacements for Judge Javier Enriquez and Judge Luise Krieger Martin this week.

Today, he announced our two newest jurists.

YARA LORENZO KLUKAS has been named to the County Court bench to replace Judge Javier Enriquez who was recently promoted to the Circuit Court. Ms. Klukas is 40 years old; she
graduated from Brown undergrad (2005) and from St. Thomas Law School (2009). She spent three years as a law clerk for Judge James Lawrence King of the US District Court; she also spent five years at Hogan Lovells, before joining the US Attorneys office as an AUSA in 2019.

JORGE PEREZ SANTIAGO has been named a County Court Judge to replace Judge Luise Krieger Martin as she recently retired from the bench. Perez, who is 38 years old, graduated from Georgetown (2008) and UM Law School (2011). He was a staff attorney to Justice Labarga on the Florida Supreme Court for three years before joining Carlton Fields for three years. He then moved in 2017 to Stumphauzer Foslid Nadler & Sloman.

Those not chosen for the two County Court seats included:

Gilberto Barreto
Heloiza Correa
Rita Cuervo
Kevin Hellmann
Kimberly Hillery
Jennifer Hochstadt
Scott Janowitz
Jay Yagoda

Gov. DeSantis is expected to name a new Circuit Court Judge in the next two weeks to replace Judge Alan Fine who recently retired.

The finalists for that seat include:

Christine Bandin
Cristina Correa
Carlos Gamez
Laura Gonzalez
Natalie Moore
Stephanie Silver

The Eleventh Judicial Circuit JNC is currently accepting applications to replace Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman and County Judge Fred Seraphin. Deadline to submit is May 26 at 5 PM.


CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Say Rumpole, any thoughts . . . any at all . . . on the Durham Report.

Seems like a guy as deeply concerned with law enforcement overreach and misconduct as you are would have . . . thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Say Rumpole, any thoughts . . . any at all . . . on the Durham Report.

Seems like a guy as deeply concerned with law enforcement overreach and misconduct as you are would have . . . thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Yoder, not Yoss. :/

Anonymous said...

Once again, people have been elevated to the county bench with little actual litigation experience. Or experience only as law clerks, as associates (and members of the Federalist Society) in large firms, and/or as federal prosecutors. None of those jobs will prepare an attorney for the "peoples court," where many litigants are pro se. As well, for a person to seek that position via Hogan Lovells and Carlton Fields indicates applicants are getting "guidance" from the elves in Gov De Santis's office, greasing their path to circuit judgeships, where they will be well placed to ensure that "tort reform" and "crime suppression" are solidly in place.
Watch to see who goes to Circuit in the next round.
Thanks to the Captain for following these developments.

Anonymous said...

@231 - give me a break. I'm as anti-Desantis as can be, but the county court appointments seem very well qualified. It sounds like your complaint is that they are too well qualified for the judiciary - almost like you would prefer some ham-and-egger to be yanked at random from some credit card collections mill or from the ticket clinic. Is that what you're saying? Please explain.

Anonymous said...

Wait, what's wrong with ham and eggs?

Anonymous said...

@3:50 No, I believe that 2:31 is making a couple simple points. 1) State trial court judges should have significant state trial court experience. 2)Moreover, given how many litigants in County Court are indigent and pro so, experience working with indigent folks in our legal community should be valued highly.

This would mean that you look for people like legal aid attorneys who spend a lot of time in court, assistant public defenders, criminal trial lawyers whose practice includes representing indigent people, and maybe assistant state attorneys, if they were not already significantly overrepresented. Those people I just named have also shown a proven track record of financial sacrifice and public service.

Lest you say that they are not as bright or credentialed, I just did a quick jog through the resumes of some of these people and saw a number of Top 14 Law Schools, or significant honors at our local law schools. The point is that time in a white shoe firm, or a federal clerkship, or as an AUSA, does almost nothing to show that you are capable and deserving of serving our community as a County Court Judge.

CAPTAIN JUSTICE said...


The Captain Retorts:

Thank you 10:40 AM. I would be willing to bet a good sum of cash that neither Klukas nor Perez Santiago have ever stepped foot in a County Court. Let me put it a different way. Klukas and Perez Santiago wouldn’t know what a Jail Division or a PIP suit was if it hit them square in the eyes. Nose. Or mouth.

Captain Out ……
Captain4Justice@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

1040 and the Captain overlook the reality of what County Court is in the context of the greater judiciary - it's the training wheels and proving ground for elevation.

Appoint a young judge, see how s/he does. Elevate or leave him/her behind. Rinse repeat. That's the process and the political reality for both of the major parties. If you can't see that basic reality, you will never be satisfied with judicial appointments at the County Court level and we will be talking past one another in all future comments.